I have one for sale that works perfectly except it has a disk stuck in the drive. I put it in the closet almost 10 years ago and it must have gotten stuck through the moves. It is the rev 2 with the 17 edit and 27 utility functions and I do have the manuals. If you are interested, I'll send some pictures. Email me at rwflash@yahoo.com - Ryan

posted Monday-Jul-22-2002 at 22:29

MICHAELEADE
a hobbyist user
from UK
writes:

I HAVE FOUND THE QX1 EXELENT, FOR BOTH PERFORMANCE AND DATA FILE STORAGE. I WOULD LOVE TO GET MY HOT LITTLE HANDS ON ANOTHER. I RELUCTANTLY SOLD MINE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, BUT WHILE IN PROCESS OF REBUILDING MY SETUP I DECIDED TO TRY AN ALTERNATIVE. I HAVE FOUND THIS BREED TO BE A REAL PIG. "I WANT MY QX1 BACK"

Rating: 5 out of 5
posted Tuesday-Apr-16-2002 at 15:36

infinite-e
a professional user
from Portugal
writes:

I just want to add the following about all the comments on QX1: This wonderful piece of equipment was released in two different versions. The newest one, released in late 1986, had more functions in its menus. It had 17 Edit functions and 27 Utility functions, more than the original QX1. From those Utility functions i can, for example, name the possibility to Bulk Dump, in or out, all the Voices in a TX816 rack (The 8xDX7 synthesizer rack), wich made QX1 an even more perfect companion for the monster synthesizer. I still use the TX816, as for the QX1... i wish, but the floppy drive is dead. Sad...

Rating: 5 out of 5
posted Saturday-Jan-12-2002 at 11:13

SF
a professional user
from USA
writes:

I used the QX-1 for sis years back in it's heyday. I can attest to it's roadworthyness. I used it in some of the sorriest clubs in the US and it never broke down on me once. I felt confident going on the road without a backup.

As for how it stacks up against PC sequencing, there's no comparison. PC's are the way to go for editing, 16-track verstility, etc. The QX-1 was always better at straight recording/playback than editing. Editing with that old system is a nightmare.

But I've often wondered about the possibility of someone tinkering around with a QX and seeing if the system could be adapted to take a hard disk instead of those silly 5-1/4 floppies. If you had a QX with all the info on a stable HD, then you might be able to timeslave the unit to your computer (running Cubase or something) and manually transfer tracks to the thing for live performance. If you could work those things out, the QX-1 could make a really nice, streamlined performance sequencer. It's a nice size (w/ Anvil case mine fit into the overhead compartments of planes), and those 8 midi outs are pretty cool.

Rating: 3 out of 5
posted Thursday-Nov-15-2001 at 15:32

QuadraBraine
a professional user
from USA
writes:

The QX1 is almost useless to modern composers. The processor is so SLOW, and navigation of the menus takes forever. OK it has 8 MIDI outs, but guess what...that's because it only has 8 tracks, and each track can only have 1 MIDI channel, so guess how many channels you can support at once. The QX5 only has 1 MIDI out, but you can have all 16 channels on one track. If you need to edit a track that has 2 channels of data, you can filter+bounce it to the track you need for editing.